Imran Nasir Sheikh Asim Riaz
As dawn broke over the Middle East on June 13, 2025, a formation of Israeli fighter jets crossed into Iranian airspace under the codename Operation Rising Lion. The targets included uranium enrichment complexes, missile installations, and the residences of senior military figures. According to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the stated purpose was to delay Iran’s nuclear program and eliminate what he described as an irreversible threat.
Yet beyond the official framing of the operation as a defensive necessity lies a more disturbing and complex reality. This military campaign may not simply represent a breach of international norms, it may mark a calculated escalation, one that threatens to dismantle diplomatic foundations painstakingly constructed over decades. Critics argue that Israel’s choice to strike was not driven by exhausted options, but by a deliberate abandonment of diplomacy in favor of confrontation. The Israeli leadership may have crossed a strategic Rubicon, launching a strike that not only invites retaliation but also weakens the very global legal frameworks it often invokes for legitimacy.
While Israeli officials insist their hand was forced, many analysts argue this was less a military maneuver than a political declaration. It was a signal, directed at both allies and adversaries, that Israel will act unilaterally, even if doing so shatters alliances, destabilizes the region, and tests the international order it claims to uphold.
Also Read: Dreamliner Disaster: From Takeoff To Tragedy – https://newsman.pk/32717-2/
The Case Israel Makes: Survival, Doctrine, and Urgency :
At the core of Israel’s justification is its deeply ingrained sense of existential threat. Netanyahu and senior defense officials claim that Iran’s nuclear program had reached a point where inaction was no longer tenable. Israeli intelligence suggested Iran had enriched enough uranium for as many as nine nuclear warheads and could potentially convert that material into deployable weapons within weeks.
This anxiety deepened when, on June 12, Iran expelled inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), a move that followed an IAEA ruling of non-compliance. To Israeli leadership, the timing made clear that Tehran intended to move forward unchecked, leaving military action as the only viable option.
This logic is rooted in the Begin Doctrine, a long-standing Israeli policy asserting its right to unilaterally prevent neighboring states from acquiring weapons of mass destruction. Precedents include the 1981 bombing of Iraq’s Osirak reactor and the 2007 strike on Syria’s suspected nuclear site. Proponents of Operation Rising Lion see the Iran operation as merely the latest expression of that doctrine.
Yet the scale and scope of this operation, the deployment of over 200 aircraft and strikes on more than 100 targets, raise questions about the real objectives. The inclusion of top IRGC commanders and nuclear scientists among the dead suggests a mission aimed not only at delay but possibly disruption or even decapitation. Was the intent to buy time, or to reshape Iran’s strategic landscape altogether?
For more than two decades, Western governments and media have insisted Iran is mere “weeks away” from developing a nuclear weapon. This forecast has been recycled so often it feels less like intelligence than political theater. It has long served as a justification for sanctions, threats, and military pressure. And yet, Iran’s behavior during that same period has remained strikingly consistent, a declared civilian nuclear program, openness to IAEA inspections, detailed negotiations, and proposals for transparent fuel-sharing frameworks have remained consistent.
The 2015 nuclear accord, seen globally as a diplomatic triumph, collapsed not because Iran violated it, but because the United States unilaterally withdrew. That decision undercut diplomacy and handed momentum to hardliners on both sides.
Legality in Question: A Doctrine on Trial
Israel has invoked Article 51 of the United Nations Charter, claiming the airstrikes were an act of lawful self-defense. But international legal experts widely challenge this position. Under international law, the concept of preventive self-defense, launching an attack before a threat has clearly materialized, is not recognized.
To meet the criteria under Article 51, there must be an armed attack in progress or imminently unfolding. While Israel cites Iran’s nuclear advancements and rhetoric, legal consensus remains absent. Moreover, the existence of ongoing diplomacy, mediated by European nations and Oman, further weakens Israel’s claim that military force was the only option.
A senior European diplomat, speaking anonymously, described the strike as “not the collapse of diplomacy, but its circumvention.” Israel, he argued, preempted a diplomatic resolution it didn’t trust.
The implications are dangerous. If subjective threat assessments become grounds for military action, international law becomes a flexible weapon, used when convenient, discarded when not. That precedent does not just endanger Iran, it threatens every nation’s sovereignty.
The Optics of Precision: Scientists, Civilians, and Strategic Messaging
Israeli spokespeople have emphasized the precision of their operation, describing it as a targeted response designed to minimize collateral damage. Strikes were reportedly confined to military and nuclear infrastructure, with high-profile casualties including IRGC commander Hossein Salami and nuclear scientist Fereydoun Abbasi.
An Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesperson insisted that the operation was not aimed at the Iranian people, but at a regime allegedly defying international norms. Yet this rhetorical distinction does little to obscure the human and psychological consequences.
Among the targets were residential properties and university-linked personnel. These actions have drawn legal and ethical scrutiny. The precision narrative falters when viewed through the lens of proportionality, a core principle of international humanitarian law. The psychological shock of missile strikes in Tehran, coupled with the assassination of scientific personnel, suggests the operation’s purpose extended beyond tactical disruption, it aimed to instill fear.
Ironically, that fear has not paralyzed Iran, it has galvanized it. Far from weakening the regime, the attack has sparked internal unity, reinforcing the view that Iran is under siege and must respond accordingly. The expulsion of IAEA inspectors, suspension of nuclear transparency, and threats of retaliation are not reckless, they are calculated acts of strategic reorientation. In striking Iran’s nuclear program, Israel may have buried it deeper and pushed it further from view.
Diplomacy Discarded or Undermined
Israeli leaders argue that diplomacy had failed. They claim Iran was using negotiations to mask enrichment and delay accountability. Yet multiple reports show that as recently as May 2025, European mediation through Oman remained active. Talks were fragile, but not dead.
The United States publicly denied involvement in the strike, but its early evacuation of embassy staff from Iraq, Jordan, and Bahrain suggests at least foreknowledge. Sources close to President Trump say he urged Israel to delay, hoping for a diplomatic breakthrough. Israel chose to ignore that advice, and in doing so, fundamentally shifted the equation.
Where once there was coordination, there is now consequence. Washington is now scrambling to manage a crisis it did not initiate but may be forced to own. The U.S.-Israel alliance remains firm on paper, but the strategic divergence is growing. Israel is increasingly dictating the timeline, leaving its allies to react rather than lead. This imbalance has led some in Washington to lament that the “tail is wagging the dog.”
Rethinking Iran’s Deterrence Doctrine in a Fractured Global Order
With trust in the international system collapsing, Iran may now conclude that a nuclear weapon is no longer a bargaining chip, it is a necessity. For Iran, the pursuit of nuclear capability is not about power, it is about survival.
Tehran’s security doctrine is grounded in deterrence theory and historical trauma. Surrounded by U.S. bases, targeted by sanctions, and facing a nuclear-armed Israel, Iran sees its security as fundamentally asymmetrical. The memory of Iraq and Libya, nations that disarmed only to be invaded, is not a hypothetical fear. It is lived experience.
In this strategic context, Iran’s nuclear calculations are not reckless. They are rational. Iran does not seek to wield nuclear weapons as instruments of coercion, but as shields. To keep swords sheathed. To prevent war, not provoke it.
Strategic ambiguity has long served this purpose. But that doctrine may no longer be sufficient. Israel’s attack, while Iran was still unarmed, has sent a clear message, restraint offers no protection.
The implications for the broader region are profound. If Iran accelerates its program, other nations, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Egypt, may do the same. The global non-proliferation regime, already fragile, may unravel entirely. Meanwhile, states like Lebanon and Syria, already mired in poverty and crisis, may face further chaos. Syria’s poverty rate now exceeds 90 percent. Another war would push millions to the brink.
Markets are already trembling. Brent crude surged by 13.2%, or $9.14 per barrel, after Israel’s strike on Iran. It spiked from a $69.36 close on June 12 to a $74.23 close on June 13, driven by a geopolitical risk premium and regional supply concerns. OPEC+ capacity may limit further spikes unless the conflict escalates. The economic aftershocks could worsen if the crisis widens.
If Iran Has the Capability, Now Is the Time to Go Nuclear
Iran must act decisively. The strategy of nuclear ambiguity, of having latent capability without open declaration, has outlived its usefulness. Israel continues its precision strikes. The U.S. maintains pressure. The international system offers no safety net.
Now is the time to operationalize deterrence. A demonstrable nuclear capability would fundamentally alter the risk calculus of any aggressor. It would signal that Iran can and will impose unacceptable costs in response to external threats.
The moment is narrow, but vital. In October 2025, the JCPOA’s snapback mechanism expires. Iran must act before multilateral constraints return. Global attention is divided. American resources are stretched. Diplomatic consensus is fractured.
A calibrated nuclear test, demonstrated at the right time, would mark the end of Iran’s vulnerability. It would shift Tehran from a target to a peer. From a pariah to a power. It would restore balance in a region long dominated by asymmetry.
This is not a call for confrontation. It is a call for equilibrium. For a Middle East no longer ruled by threats, but by mutual deterrence.
Authors:
Imran Nasir Sheikh
Imran Nasir Sheikh is a seasoned naval aviator with extensive operational experience in maritime surveillance and anti-submarine warfare. He is currently pursuing a PhD in Defence and Strategic Studies at Quaid-i-Azam University, Islamabad, where his research focuses on the nuclear threat dynamics in the Indian Ocean Region, particularly in relation to the evolving strategic landscape and the maritime security of China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC). His work explores the intersection of undersea deterrence, regional power projection, and sea-based stability mechanisms in a contested littoral environment.
Asim Riaz
Asim Riaz holds an M.Phil in Strategic Studies from the National Defence University, Islamabad, with degrees in Energy Management and Mechanical Engineering. With a distinguished career spanning over 20 years, he brings expertise in the energy sector, geopolitics, and addressing non-traditional security threats. He is currently serving as Energy Advisor at APTMA, Islamabad.
Email: asimaptma@gmail.com